Robert Aickman wrote a vast treatise, Panacea, setting out his personal philosophy. It has never been published. Doug Anderson is one of the few people to have read it. He provides Part 1 of a summary in Wormwood 28, just out.

Here’s a taster from Doug’s summary of Aickman’s arguments in the early chapters:

“Attempts at achieving racial purity must fail. History shows many examples of the improvement in living standards with the infiltration of one culture by another. The term “race” means very little.”

“Life is short, but in order to really live, man needs to be free, especially from forced labour.”

“The ideas of eugenics done by eliminating “unfit” people from procreation are based on misunderstandings on how society functions.”

“Man has always been enraged, worried and puzzled by insecurity. Thus came religion, and it set the common man in his place, below the landowners and the clergy who worked together to maintain their ascendancy. "
A discussion of Darwin and evolution (“now proved to the satisfaction of most reasonable persons”) and the rival theory, promoted by George Bernard Shaw, of “life force” (“a figment of the imagination”)

Based on these so far, I would characterise Aickman as a rationalist libertarian. He may, of course, have modified some views in later life, although I suspect largely not.

Very timely post by excellent Mr. Valentine, as some members of this community have lately been attempting to present Aickman as a right winger.

*sigh*

I don't see how any of the above info contradicts this. Have you read his autobiographies? Accounts of his views from those who knew him? He was quite clearly a conservative (small 'c') libertarian. I have no agenda in presenting Aickman as a conservative person who despised socialism and believed in maintaining social hierarchies. That's just who he actually was, and I'm tired of people trying to sanitise him into some bizarre progressive burlesque version, though I am aware the battle is lost at this point because most of the people talking about Aickman know nothing about Aickman.

Nothing in the information presented in the OP suggests Aickman wasn't a conservative.

Quote
Originally Posted by Hidden X

So, it is safe to assume that he would have been anti-Brexit!

?????????

I give up.

'I believe in what the Germans term Ehrfurcht: reverence for things one cannot understand.'
― Robert Aickman, An Essay

I don't believe in the supernatural; and yet I have had a couple of supernatural experiences.

How do I square this? I guess just by appreciating the fact that as human beings we are often self-contradictory, inconsistent, uncertain, bewildered, and the 'truths' we utter about ourselves and our beliefs are often inaccurate, misleading, vague or subject to adjustment, revision and even complete overhaul. We often don't know what we believe, and what we claim to believe isn't always what we really believe, even if we think it is.

Be wary of accepting at face value what people say about themselves when they claim to be rationalists or believers or whatever. As Nuruddin Farah once said, "Never trust a self definer."

There are times when we can hold two or more opposing viewpoints at the same time and not feel any cognitive dissonance as a consequence. This is because our identities are not the integrated single units that we sometimes picture them to be, but consist of a hive of aspects that sometimes work together and sometimes don't. I can believe in ghosts with one part of my mind and dismiss them with another.

I'm curious as to why Aickman believing in the supernatural would be an issue in the first place? I could understand disappointment, shock, or maybe some resentment if he was a religious fanatic, but belief in ghosts is pretty much harmless whereas holistic medicine at its worst is on par with countless other poor health choices.

And I honestly don't understand why you and some other folks here are so dead set on presenting him as a conservative.

“Attempts at achieving racial purity must fail. History shows many examples of the improvement in living standards with the infiltration of one culture by another. The term “race” means very little.”

Very conservative, eh James...

I do hope that "Panacea" will be published in one form or another. Though, by the looks of it, some will no doubt claim that it was the case of him being dishonest or that manuscript itself was modified by someone else.